₦airaland Forum

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
I ought to make myself clearer. By defining two opposite things by themselves you tell me nothing. Saying Light is the opposite of dark is okay if I know what dark is independently of light. But When my definition of dark is simply the opposite of light then I am defining both terms by themselves and that tells me nothing.

Put another way, I'm going to make up a phenomenon called ignositis. What is that? Ignositis is the opposite of Depakisis. But what is Depakisis? Depakisis is the opposite of Ignositis. Now tell me, What have you learned? Apart from two nonsensical terms. Opposites (thesis/anti-thesis. Oh lawd, I tremble when I use those terms. I feel the need to add with haste that I'm not being Hegelian when I say that) are too intimately intertwined to give information about each other. When defining heads, rather than say it is that which is not tails, it is better to explain the whole concept of a coin and then state that heads is but one side of a coin. Do you get me? Oh? So what is this?

Of course, it is a way of deliberately assuming that one cannot see what is stated that makes you assume no substance in what I shared. Put another way, what you are hoping to highlight is the vacant and simplistic assumption that I might have defined "spirit" by saying it is "not human", and then when (if) you had asked what is "human", I might have said it is "spirit".

You see, this simplistic cacophony was what made me highlight the point that, unless you deliberately are given to miss the gist here, then certainly it should not have been difficult to see. For which reason I used the example of dark matter to show you that it is a false assumption to state that definitions cannot be made using what a that entity does not entail! That is a fallacy, my dear, and no matter how you hoot against it, it is still a fallacy. Meanwhile, if one should be honest, the simplistic way you assumed I had explained "spirit' is far different from what I had posted.

Pastor AIO:
I'm sorry, I don't understand your yoruba here. What does descriptive indices defining reality have to do with defining something by what it is not?

One can define an entity in relation to what it is not. You are forcing yourself to be bogged down with the fallacious idea that such descriptives cannot be used, but dear AIO you are very, very wrong! Dark matter is a reality that most scientists speak about, and they have described it with terms which is not what it is - it is not visible, and cannot be detected by radiation, but can be inferred by their gravtitational effects on other entities. These are not difficult issues to understand - as they are descriptive terms of the nature of dark matter as regards how its behaves and how it does not.

What your problem here is only highlights the fact that you're looking for something and yet unable to specifically highlight what exactly you're looking for. This is the kind of vacant "questions" that I only tease around and wait for the enquirer to get a grip of himself, because all the while such a person may not realize how they are using their own fallacies to reject other descriptive entities. That is why you are assuming that an entity cannot be defined by what it is not - and there are a plethora of other examples which have been defined by what they are NOT, contrary to your assertion that such a thing cannot be done! That is why you had also assume the simplistic way you described what I posted about 'spirit' , as if that was how I described it.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
So perhaps you can tell us what you mean by physical properties. For instance, would having a physical location in time and space be a physical property. Must an object have mass before it can be considered physical. What about massless particles in physics?

I don't think we need to be unnecessarily tedious with this subject. If scientists know of realities whcih they only hypothesize, cannot speak directly of their nature, and whose behaviours are not specifically identified, why then should the reality known as "spirit" become seriously a problem?

Meanwhile, I don't think my entries alluded to an idea that an entity ought to have mass before it could be recognized as a reality. Again, I have not tried to define a "spirit" with physical indices! If anything, what we know as the quality of a spirit being "incorporeal" nevertheless is summised as a reality whose nature is such as that it is "not composed of matter as we know it". These phenomena may be hard to digest, but they do not negate the fact of their existence.

Pastor AIO:
Basically, I need something more substantial that what you have posted above.

I shall try to post more later on, especially if you could highlight a few things besides what I have posted that may not have satisfied your quest.

Shalom.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
Pilgrim.1, you have said the above. However I'm none the wiser and I'll tell you why. If I were to ask you, "What is light"?, and you were to respond that 'light is what is not Dark' you would have told me nothing. I could pursue my enquiry further and ask, 'but what is dark?', to which you would probably respond that dark is what is not light. And still, I would remain none the wiser.

If you had taken the time to read carefully through what I offered, the analogy you used there is way off what you would have read.

Pastor AIO:
You cannot define a thing by it's opposite, or even by what it is NOT. You need to provide actual qualities that it exhibits. Or at least it's tendencies. What does spirit do that Matter does not do. As it happens there isn't a fixed definition of physical properties in metaphysics. That is why there are so many different types of naturalism.

I have not defined 'spirit' by its opposite, nor by what it is not; and it is a false assumption many people make in stating that something cannot be defined by what it is not! Descriptive indices actually are used to define entities that are real in our world, so where do you get the idea that one could not do so?

An example? Dark matter is said to be an entity that is present in our world; but ask a scientist who speaks of the term and he would tell you at least a couple of things which include something that it is NOT:

- "non luminous matter presumed to exist in space"
- "a substance that scientists think exists out in space,
but for which they have no direct proof"

What those sources say includes what dark matter is NOT - ie, it is NOT luminous. But let me quote yet other sources to be more direct -


■ [url=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=dark%20matter]WordNet[/url] dictionary says the following:
'dark matter ((cosmology) a hypothetical form of matter that is believed
to make up 90 percent of the universe; it is invisible (does not absorb
or emit light) and does not collide with atomic particles but exerts
gravitational force)"

■ Wikitionary puts it this way:
'(astronomy) particles of matter that cannot be detected by
their radiation but whose presence is inferred from
gravitational effects'

■ Wikipedia has it as:
'In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is hypothetical matter
that does not interact with the electromagnetic force,
but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on
visible matter.'

■ Dialogue for Kids (D4K) says:
'nonluminous (not emitting light or visible) material that
cannot be seen in the sky.
Dark matter is one of the most mysterious things in the universe.
Scientists think that dark matter occurs everywhere but
they don't yet know exactly what it is made of.'

You see, Pastor AIO, these days when people use these quizzical verbosities of "cognition and cognitive" blah-blah et al, we allow them get away with such vague terms - even in the corridors of "science". Nobody rejects these theories from scientists espousing the idea of an entity whose nature they do not know, and in which reality they only infer as being hypothetical, yet undeniable as a reality that is invisible!

On the other hand, if one were to describe spiritual realities using terms as "invisible", and say they (often) "cannot be seen", which are "incorporeal" in nature, and are "not composed of matter as we know it", immediately we have you and our dear friends arrogating some super authority to yourselves by saying "You cannot define a thing by it's opposite, or even by what it is NOT." Where you get such an idea that realities cannot be defined in that manner is beyond me!

mazaje:
pilgrim lol are you kidding me? you are not serious. . . . .

You know me. . . when it comes to mazaje itself himself, pilgrim.1 is never serious!

Enjoy o jare, make I attend to some other stuff before I come back.

mazaje:
no its people that believe that snakes eat dust that can think ohh i forgot its only people that believe in talking donkeys,talking snakes and a person living inside a whale for days that can think. . . .

Learn how parrots talk - do animals talk?

@mazaje,

mazaje:
no its people that believe that snakes eat dust that can think ohh i forgot its only people that believe in talking donkeys,talking snakes and a person living inside a whale for days that can think. . . .

Lol, play with these for the moment -


[flash=425,355]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skE2dq3cm0A&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

[flash=425,355]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBhE6LNdBEs&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

naijaguy77:
Religious faith is the process of non-thinking, that is the dictionary definition of faith.

Which dictionary?

KunleOshob:
My dear pilgim.1 this is my 1000th post on nairaland which i am dedicating to you I don't need to read the whole bible for me to detect that it is not undiluted. However i would have to read every book in spirit to determine which books are 100% undiluted and what would that profit me or any one after all Jesus did not send the bible to us neither did he tell us to base our faith or christianity in it. Jesus sent the holy spirit that should be enough to guide true christians who understand his true Gospel which is also revealed in the bible under question

I have said earlier that your strain of argument is not helping your ideology, and that was why I wanted to leave the thread until such a time as may invite my further inputs. When you begin to understand what I have been pointing out, perhaps only then would you see the difference.

Cheers.

KunleOshob:
Well since christ is not physically around to show us which scripture is right and which is wrong, we should let the holy spirit guide us. And for those of us that are yet to be spirit filled, we should test wether what we are reading conforms to the nature and the spirit of Christ which is based on eternal love

This is just being evasive. Did you not know that "Christ is not physically around" before you tried to argue doctrine tirelessly from the same Bible in other threads?

KunleOshob:
On Asking specifically what books i would assume are authentic, the question does not give room for an accurate answer. I won't mention books in particular because i have not read every single book word for word but i know for a fact even within the individual books parts of them might have been corrupted and not neccessarily the whole book.

If there is no "room" (?) for an accurate answer and you haven't read every single book, what is the substance to your assertions then? How is it that people just make these assertions without having checked for themselves? Thsi was why I was wondering that you're just repeating from others what you assume by rote!

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
But then again a lot of chritians would fail to realize it and label me as a syncretic.

To be fair to others, there's only one person who has used that word ('syncretism') to address this fundamental concern in this thread - pilgrim.1. I'm not aware about "a lot of Christians" who have labelled you as you allege. Which makes me wonder that you guys are not manly enough to address issues, but would make every effort to be so surreptitious. Could I ask why?

You had asked me to refrain from using that term in describing what you're inclining to; I acquisced, but then I wonder why you would bring that up again as if it was a blasphemy I was commiting against KunleOshob? Please try and understand something here - it's no big deal to check the term and its application from some helpful sources:

[list]Syncretism consists of the attempt to reconcile disparate or contradictory beliefs, often while melding practices of various schools of thought. The term may refer to attempts to merge and analogize several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, and thus assert an underlying unity allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths.[/list]

Who are the "lot of christians" that have been labelling you as you alleged?

Anyhow, I've tried to help you delineate the real import of your concerns. Since this is not helping you and yet you have no answers to your own concerns and questions, I've decided to leave this issue for you. It's your world, and since you have been using the same Bible to argue other doctrines in other threads, I wonder what kind of double standards you were holding by questioning the same thing you had appealed to! This whole thing drew my attention only because you are the very person who asked me to not add to or substract from God's Word - but here you are doing the direct opposite of what you advised!! That was why I asked that initial question on page 1 of this thread, and I shall note your attitude to the Scriptures henceforth when you try to use the same Bible to argue out doctrines in other threads.

Cheers.

@Kunle,

These are a few of what I'm trying to point out:

KunleOshob:
@pilgrim.1
I feel compelled to address two points you keep hammering about not for your sake because i know you know better but for the sake of other readers who are following this thread so i am not mis-understood. (The reason being that i have observed that pilgrim.1 argues for the sake of winning arguments whether her stand point is wrong or right doesn't really matter as long as she can box you into a corner, make you quote yourself out of context and give an impression that she as superior arguments or logic. Once she achieves this she is happy whether she is right or wrong) My dear sister, forums like this are meant for us to share knowledge and gain from each other and not necessarily prove to every boody that you know better than them.

You actually misrepresent me here, Kunle. Every single time I have ever tried to present my view and anyone calls my attention to them, I have take a look again and shared what I suppose may be correct or wrong in inference; where I was mistaken, I also pointed that out. To allege this against me is really unreasonable and is the reason why I wonder at all if you are interested to share anything.

KunleOshob:
back to the issue at stake you keep on hammering about the 300,000 errors detected in the king James translation of the bible. This remains a statement of fact what you should have added to that statement like David rightly observed is that the errors were not substantial enough to significantly change the message the bible is passing across( even that is debateble in some instances) Even the custodians of the King James version have acknowledged the errors and that is the primary reason why the New King James version was written. So stop trying to be more catholic than the pope.

Another canard. First, I'm not being more catholic than anybody. I have heard so many people allege that there are 300,000 errors in the KJV, and every single time I ask such people whether they are just saying it by rote or have checked it out for themselves, I am rebuffed without an answer provided.

Second, KunleOshob, I am not one of those whom you discourteously wrote off with "ignorance" - for I already knew about the errors in translations and version before my conversion: I have also posted links where I discussed this very issue early this year. But what you have been holding unto was not actually errors in translations, but complaints about what portions of Scripture you cannot accept as "scripture" as a 'Christian'. To this end, I asked you which books in your own canon are authentic, but what answer have you provided to that question, Kunle?

You see, many people here were not careful to see these things, for which they consequently accused me of all sorts. No worries, if no one is concerned about these two distinctives, what is my wahala there? Afterall I asked this very question from the onset, but no cogent answers were offered.

KunleOshob:
That aside i have a Stong's bible concordance based on the King James version and i can personally attest to hundreds of translation errors. On the other statement you keep hammering on that i said "my faith is not in the bible" i think that is just semantics calculated at giving the impression to other readers who have not been following my posts well that i do not believe inthe bible.

Excuse me, Kunle - if anyone was trying to be so unnecessarily tedious with my simple question, it was you! I never put that bold in your mouth, for not at any time did I ask whether you "worship" the Scriptures. If your faith was not in the Bible, has that changed any fact that you are questioning the BIBLE itself all this while? If you actually believe in the Bible, why has that been so difficult for you to demonstrate all along and yet easily and flimsily asking questions that you have not yourself answered?

KunleOshob:
For clearity of pupose and for the benefit of other readers i would explain my position further. The bible as been raised into the position of an Idol through church dogma and even though it was never given to us by christ ( it was put together by catholic bishops) the christian faith as been wrongly tied around it even though the early christians never used it and it was not sent to us to be used in the form it is in by God or Christ himself. When i say my faith is not in the bible it does not mean i don't believe the bible. My faith is simply not in it but it s in The true Gospel of Our lord Jesus christ and his love for us all. So please don't confuse faith in God/ Jesus with faith in a book that that was put together by mere mortal men.

Kunle, I never asked you if your faith was in the Bible - please refrain from this duplicity and go back and read my question! You are making noise here about things you introduced that I never once asked! This is so, so hideous.

KunleOshob:
Personally i think it is blasphemous to call a book with such imperfections "the undiluted word" of a perfect God. My position is this whilst as christians it is profitable for us to learn from the bible with should read it with a discerning mind and test the spirit of whatever we read if it conforms to the spirit of Christ before accepting. IF we don't do this Demons like Rev King would be able to Justify slaughtering Church members from the bible based on what Moses did or what elisha did with the forty two children that mocked him. The question is what would Christ do?

I'll tell you what Christ would do. Be bold to show us which books of the Bible are authentic in your own canon and which are not - then I shall show you what Christ Himself would do!

@KunleOshob,

I was hoping to stay out of this thread for just one reason - those who assume a super-spiritual high that anything "pilgrim.1" says is deliberately miscalculated and misrepresented in order to say all sorts against my person. This is not new - it has happened so many times in the past and continues to happen; but my one focus has been to face issues and not persons, and I think it is unfair to allege things against me every single time when you really have not been able to address issues.

The first question I asked about your faith being a "Biblical faith or not" was because I knew from the onset that you were leading a logic which would turn out to be something you can't handle. That has been the consistent point I tried to singulalrly point out. Three things have resulted from that: (a) the implications emerged exactly as I pointed out; (b) I also asked what books you would assume were authentic and which were not; (c) because so many people refused to see what I was pointing to, I was called all sorts of names.

I wonder why this is always the attitude that people have to take, not because it would seem they are looking for answers; but because where these are vacant, the same people turn again to the gimmick of alleging things that they cannot sustain. Let me show you just a few.

ayinba1:
@pilgrim

try to surprise me one of these days.

Just as you do, no?

DavidDylan:
the bible is not meant to be read as a literary exercise but as God's silent voice to the soul that is guided by the Holy Ghost.

"We know that errors in translations are bound to occur in almost any book - whether religious or secular!" (since early this year, I already pointed that out).

ayinba1:
@pilgrim
even David, (whom we all know ) found sense in Tasma's post. But you still find a bone to pick from it. Girl, chill, you've got issues!

@ayinba1,

Thanks. I didn't say Tasma's posts didn't make any sense, did I? You see, ayinba1, if you've got any issues, don't be shy to say so instead of scuttling round to put it on me. What people don't understand (as Tasma indirectly was referring to me) was what I set out plainly. Miss that, no worries.

olabowale:
@Pilgrim.1: You seem not to get it; is arabic Qur'an not the Qur'an you used for your Salah, etc?
. . .

And by the way, I am not bashing the Bible or Christianity. I am just reading your piece and responding to it, as it is appropriate. I know you will acuse me in a quick New York minute.

First, I am not bashing Islam; but the muslim's endless arguments about how Christianity is this, that and the other is one reason that got me thinking and made me leave Islam. I have not come over to bother you, so I wonder why your blood is always restless wherever you see "pilgrim.1".

Second, we have been through this issue about the errors in many versions of the translated Quran. We have been through this discussion before - and even you had to admit that there are various readings of the arabic quran. Why do you often pretend that you have forgotten this very thing and keep repeating the same drivel every single time in every thread, Olabowale? Why are you so given to this tireless duplicity?

A reminder to the thread where we have discussed this very issue:

 The 5 versions of the Arabic Koran:

 (here - someone else pointed your problem out)

 (my reply to your own preference of different readings)

 (this is one reason why your penchant to be openly deceptive no longer interests me).

olabowale:
If you were aware of these errors before conversion, I wonder how long your first introduction to the Bible, before you left Islam?

I have said so so so many times already that theology did not settle the matter of my conversion for me. I was also well aware of so, so many translation errors of the Quran before my conversion.

Chrisbenogor:
@pilgrim
The finger thingy is quite old my dear, abi are you saying na you holy pass?

Did I make any such claims?

@Tasma,

Hi there. Please allow me to make a few comments to correct some misconceptions.

Tasma:
It's quite sad that meaningful, intelligent threads always tend to get dragged through all this aimless rambling. No wonder the original poster hasn't been back here for a while. The key points made by the poster stand, he's assertion that the Bible is bound to contain many flaws due to the hand of man and hence that he cannot base he's faith on this "imperfect compilation". Where is the confusion in that? He has not said he has nothing [/b]to learn from the Bible he has only said that he reads it with a discerning spirit and takes the message from it with being too involved in the "literalness" (my own word!) of it. [b]A poster keeps going on about him saying that he's faith is not in the Bible. It's obvious that he means he does not bother about the correctness of every word in the Bible but simply reads it in a spiritual way. Is this so hard to understand? If we can admit that errors may have occurred during translations of the Bible from one language to another is it hard to imagine several errors that may have crept in via compilations, editing, intentional manipulation by various Kings and Clerics.

It's obvious that you were pointing in my direction by the blue highlighted part in yours. No bother; but it would have helped if you took the time to understand a few basics I already pointed out.

From the onset, my first premise was to ask a simple question:
    _________________________________________________________________________

     The first thing I would like to ask is this: is your ‘Christian’ faith a Biblical one or not?
    _________________________________________________________________________

A simple yes or no is not costly; but he rather answered later on that his faith was not in the Bible. Now that is not the same thing as having a Biblical faith - I cared less if his faith was in a magazine. Nevermind that he was quite at home to hold others in ignorance for even asking about his presuppositions. Now, dear Tasma, what was so difficult in that simple question that has warranted this reaction where everyone has called me names directly and indirectly? I'm still thankful all the same, but if you guys had cared to be objective, it sure would have been easy enough to see what I had been pointing out.

I don't worship the scriptures; also, I've said clearly that even before my conversion, I was well aware of the translation errors in many versions. BUT, errors in translation is not the same thing as asking that certain portions of Scripture be removed altogether! In my replies, I had pointed that same thing out and two other issues: (a) the implication of his summations; and (b) what exactly are the books he regards as authentic in the Bible. Rather than point us to these, it was a glib response that was offered.

Errors in translation and asking that portions of scripture be not present in the Bible are not the same things. These two distinctions should not be difficult to see, no?

Tasma:
Lastly the question really to ask is that does the fact that a story is not literally correct mean that it cannot carry a message? I can write a completely fictional book that still carries a powerful message to people. Does one have to insist on the Bible being 100% accurate to back up it's usefulness to humankind? If anything insisting the Bible is flawless only leaves room for all sorts of critics to argue endlessly about this, useful time that can sent actually spreading the message of love and care among human beings. The stance that the Bible can only be interpreted properly with the holy spirit has really nothing to do with this argument. Any religious book has a profound message for the reader if one reads with the right spirit, heck a non-religious book may have a profound impact on a person's life if read with the right spirit. Does this mean that the book is literally totally flawless and 100% correct? Of course not! Would be nice if we could reduce this endless arguing for the sake of it and have the courage to admit others might have a point even if it's something we don't feel disposed to agreeing with.

In all honesty, while that is not the point in my replies as you assumed above, would it be such a difficult thing for you guys to also "have the courage to admit others might have a point even if it's something [you] don't feel disposed to agreeing with"? Is it so difficult to apply your own recommendation inward while asking others to take it?

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
Shows you how obstinate one can be when you are a religious fanatic.

It's easy to point fingers at others, but that's okay.

I answered his questions. If your understanding misses them, no worries. As long as you play the ignorance game, you keep getting the same answer.

I answered his questions. If your understanding misses them, no worries. As long as you play the ignorance game, you keep getting the same answer.

I answered his questions. If your understanding misses them, no worries.

olabowale:
lol. At least am not the smart person, who will not answer a direct question. I also see that you are too sensitive. I am hoping you will just answer questions, instead of telling us stories. I don't have stomach for any.

I answered his questions. If your understanding misses them, no worries.

olabowale:
@Pilgrim.1: « #11 on: November 07, 2008, 02:16 PM »
The questions were not just about corruptions of man on the religion(s) what is entrusted to him from God. Kunle asked about the descendants of people who he assumed worshipped the One God before Abraham, and them later worshipped by the Israelites. And if such religion(s) that were pure but after the corruptions still managed to remain, even up to now, or at least to the advent of Christianity?

Interesting that you observe that Christianity may have been corrupted. Please tell us if there is a sect of Christianity that survives all the tormoil of man's influences, and still pure, as "Christ" would have left a religion and hoped that people after him would have worshipped?

Could there be from God a more than one pure religion, that He would accept worship from man, at the same time? Could you assume that Judaism is still pure, if it was what Moses brought from God, while at the same time Christianity is pure if it is what Jesus brought from God?

All your effort is to discredit Christianity. This attitude of hypocrisy was why I examined Islam and dumped it. The questions Kunle asked have been answered and he did not disagree thereto.

olabowale:
One should wonder if El is not part of Eloi that sounds like what came out in the crying out on the cross? But interestingly, one should note that Jehovah and Yahweh, the names that Jews and Christians want people to accept as the Lord my God's name, do not be derived from the names of persons listed above.

My quick comment is this: Emmanu el seems to have the same underpinning as the other names. Yet, none of them is construed as god incarnate. Praise of God as a name is stronger than God is with us.

Muhammad did not know the God worshipped by the Jews - that is why the Muslim hate continues till this very day.

olabowale:
Blind leap of fate. Has we see, there was nothing leading anyone to a sudden change of Lord my God becoming lord Jesus Christ! You see a corruptive game in play, without any doubt. The game is stale.

There are over 72 sects in islam which have also corrupted Islam. Are you the only ignorant Muslim oblivious of that fact?

@justcool,

How body? I guess even that greeting may church something unfavorable in you if you are feeling indisposed towards my rejoinders. Anyhow, there are a few things that should be brought to the attention of posters who surreptitiously allege issues against others while assuming no one notices. Here are a few of those hints:

justcool:
@seeklove
I keep telling you to stop fighting my battles for me. Consider, there is a reason my Christ kept quiet when false accusations were made against him by the mob who cried "crucify Him." Its high time you start looking beyond the physical and judge from the spiritual. Now, I am not comparing myself to Christ, I am only trying to learn His ways. When you understand the spiritual reason for their malicious attacks, then rather than being upset you will feel sorry for them.

We don't need anyone to feel sorry for anyone, because if you have to be honest there are no malicious attacks other than your deliberately wanting to read it so. If I read something in yours which is questionable, I would call your attention to it rather than pretend it is okay for you to slur anyone and pray sunny day. And so I did call your attention to some of the things you previously posted which you should answer to, instead of assuming that anyone was attacking you maliciously thereto.

justcool:
In my post I clearly put John in parenthesis after quoting. I clearly showed that I was quoting John, and not Mathew. Here is what I wrote:

My dear, that's no excuse. You clearly said "according to Matthew" and yet you were quoting John. That you clearly put that latter in "parenthesis" is even more misleading, because you would be putting both as the same with a mark of synonym of one for the other - which again is wrong.

justcool:
Actually the Mathew there was a typo, which even a child can clearly see.

For crying out loud, if you knew it was a typo all along, why not clearly own up to it instead of trying to justify the same earlier? Did you not say that "Mathew said the same thing too"? Would it have been difficult to show us where Matthew said "the same" thing as you were to make us believe?

This is no big deal, justcool. It just simply shows that some who are quite at home to assume everyone else is oblivious of these matters, are not helping matters in making indefensible assertions.

justcool:
Her accusation would have been justified if the quote was made and not in the bible or written by the gospel writers. Now tell me what is the point capitalizing on this, I clearly quoted John. Not only that, I gave a the version of the bible that i was quoting. Now ask youself, what is the point capitalizing on this?

Just above I've given you the point as to why I used that as an example to show the attitude of the indefensible assertions some people make. Meanwhile, I was not accusing you, other than your deliberate mindset to read it so. You made misleading statements, tried to justify it earlier ("Mathew said the same thing too", and only now have come back to admit you were wrong. Is there any "attack, accusations" or "malice" in that?

justcool:
Actually there is verse similar to that, in meaning in Mathew; but let the accuser find out him/herself. Consider that my post was only directed to Kunle.

I will repeat: my post was not accusing you or anyone. Because you assume to be of a superior breed to always read "attack" and "assume", that is why I asked you to show me the very verse in Matthew that you still could not find up until now! I ask again: is that an amazingly difficult thing to do?

justcool:
Capitalizing on it is a childish strategy that losers employ.

Asserting it blankly without showing it is a popular device that continues to fail your grounds.

justcool:
When a child is losing ground, he or she might start pointing unimportant things. Like a child will tell you, "your cloths are cheap" when he is losing an argument that has nothing to do with cloths. It simply show you that there is no flaw in my argument, so the attacker starts to bring in unimportant things like typos and punctuation.

I guess you're crying your lullaby here in self-description of your post, yes? This is how you hope to pass as "trying to learn Christ's ways" while at pains to always cry that I was attacking you? Between me and you, justcool, who has used the word "typo" before now, after you have tried to justify what you have failed to present?

You see, this attitude you guys manifest is rather unfortunate. It is sadly a sanctimonious attitude that is not man enough to deal with issues without appealing to this under currents and insinuations while idealizing yourself as logically balanced. My saying this might bring out the cry of "malice, attacks, accusations, rudeness, fighting, insults', and "looking for trouble", as well a thousand other cries besides these; but there comes a time when these pretences should be clearly highlighted and bleached out so you guys know exactly what you address.

justcool:
There is no flaws in my argument which he/she can hold on to. So he/she starts to hold on to unimportant things. And if you don't watch it, he/she would condescend to personal attacks.

I have not resorted to "personal attacks" - go back and please show me who you meant in the language you employed in your rejoinder.

justcool:
And don't ever think that I am intimidated or running away from anybody. The truth speaks for itself; anger, accusations and etc are only found where the Truth is lacking. All these are attempts to drag you down to their level. So when I keep quite, its not that I am intimidated; I just don't want to be dragged down to that level.

I see. You can breathe easy now only after you have served your mindset, no?

justcool:
I tell you what. Just print all my post in this thread, also print my attackers post. Take the print out and give to somebody who is unbiased, perhaps an American. And ask him/her "between my attacker and I, who is losing grounds?"
Learn to see beyond the physical.

That shows us how much you're trying to "learn the ways of Christ". Well done.

@chessguru,

chessguru:
@pilgrim.1
UPSET? it is like you have no idea who chessguru is, i am completely new to Religious section and there is nothing a mortal can say that will upset/unnerve me, check my previous posts from A-Z to see this!!

Good to know - that was why I appealed that you calmed down and let's talk.

chessguru:
Anyway, my point is, Our faith sure have its rot in the Bible but they that worship the lord or serve him must do so in spirit and in truth, if this constant communication with thelord in spirit is not present, the study of the bible becomes a mere exercise so , the Bottom line is that it is the spiritual aspect that makes the word of God the word of God, Not the printing press, there fore Whatever Human error you see is inconsequential to the living Faith!!

I see your point, and please don't misunderstand my premise. This very thing you're pointing out is what I first tried to point out in so many ways previously - but they were all misread. However, no one who has read me would deny the fact that some of those translations errors in many versions have been clearly stated in my previous posts: both the verses, what they state, and how they may/could be understood in comparison with other verses and translations.

The point is, I am very, very well aware of translation errors.

I only posed that question to you to help bring out something crucial: to categorically help state it to KunleOshob and his friends who are misunderstanding the issue between "errors" in translation and actual and deliberate UN[/b]biblical fiat. Inspite of the "translation errors" which I was well aware of before my becoming a Christian, the essential message of the Bible has never changed - and I can attest to its power in my life! That is what I have pointed out on page 1.

However, even with the translation errors or none at all, it is quite a different matter altogether for someone to say that "my faith is not in the Bible" - that is not a statement that says one has a Biblical faith, as distinct from another who says he has a Biblical faith.

If I, for instance, begin to discard several [b]books or passages of the same Bible - not because of errors in translation, but rather because I don't want them to be part of the Bible - the question people should be asking me is this: how could they be sure I'm proposing a Biblical faith if I don't want the Bible to speak for itself?

The problem now is a complaint about the political imbroglio in canonizing the Bible: who chose what books and why.

At the end of the day, the canon we have today has been quoted by the same people who say their faith is not in the Bible. No, that does not sound like they meant some passages in the Bible, but just plainly "the bible" itself! If their faith is not in the Bible, on what grounds is anyone going to help such people? If "the Bible" is the question (not parts of it), then NOTHING in the Bible should make sense or hold the faith of such people - they do not need to quote that same "Bible" anymore!

This is what many people do not realize - and that was why it was the very first question I asked KunleOshob. If his faith is not in the BIBLE, then what is the idea behind his quoting any part of the same BIBLE?

All the same, people should be careful when they make bland statements. More often than not, they are largely unaware of what their statements may be pointing others to - and if anyone has been missing it, I have asked him to come and answer to the logic that some have read out of his proposition.

Cheers.

@chessguru,

Please clam down - I see this is upsetting you already. Many times in this thread, people start out on some assumptions; and when called to clear themselves, they resort to something else instead of what is being requested. Now yours:

chessguru:
the quikning and bringing to life has to do with what the spirit of the lord is communicating to a person at a particular ponit in time, if Gods decides to use what can be termed as error to fulfill his purpse, SO BE IT!!

Okay, that's what I hope Kunle would see. I really appreciate your response, even though that is not what my understanding yields. Kunle had mentioned that there are 300,000 translation errors in the popular KJV - probably in reference to someone else who just blandly assumed it so, and everyone is quoting that fellow without even verifying for themselves the veracity of that statement. The translation errors do not denigrate the message of the Bible - and that is what we all need to understand! However, the real problem here is not one of translation errors, but rather one that declares "my faith is not in the Bible". Can you see the difference?

chessguru:
and the human intellect can't question that successfully, it takes spiritual dicernment to do his, not by mans power or query!!

I don't think the "questioning" by human intellect is what this is all about. Even spiritual discernment we all talk about should be able to help us delineate the crux of this whole matter - it is whether or not one has a Biblical faith. That should not be difficult to understand, should it?

Edit:

chessguru:
however this s only hypothetical, Bottom line is The lord can use whatever pleases him to satify his purpose, and his words can never go back to him void!!

Okay, I hear. It is that "word" that does not return to Him void (Isaiah 55:11) that we all would like to grasp - and again, that is based on whether someone has a Biblical faith or not.

Does a simple question have no answers?

@chessguru,

chessguru:
Whatever God wants to quicken is left for him to decide in hs unquestionable wisdom, it is Gods game and he plays by his rules!! the human can't solve spritual puzzles, infact it rebels against it, that is why the lord jesus talks about the childlike approach.

This childlike approach is why I asked you this question: since the Bible is full of 300,000 errors, do they also "come to life" as well? Are the "errors" also quickened?